Head covering at Church

[cubanito]

Paul writes, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man (that is Christian men and women) is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head" (1 Cor. 1:3-6).

Up until the 1960's this was understood simply and women everywhere wore something on their head.

Then came the SECOND wave of feminism (that is, the one not concerned so much with equal rights but with erasing all gender distinctions, homosexuality and abortion). Also came the Roman Vatican II and in a VERY short time, with almost no discussion, almost all ladies gave up the plain meaning of Scripture and millenia of tradition.

Now, I am not asking for a discussion on the interpretation of the verse. Please if you wish start a separate thread for that.

What puzzles me is WHY the Protestant churches so suddenly decided to imitate both the culture and the Roman "catholic" church.

If going hatless to church had occured after a profound and careful theological debate I would be quite OK with that. But the reality is that this change occured because ladies brought the culture into the church without much, if any, Biblical examination. This, and the additional fact tha Rome seemed to lead this disturbs me. I go to a church were there is no headcovering, BTW. My unmarried daughters and wife though are required by me to have SOMETHING on their head. The married are to listen to their husbands, not me.

Ladies, I am NOT going to argue on your site. I am going to read your responses, only answering if specifically asked.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Quite the roaring silence in response to this post.  I'll take the liberty of resurrecting this year-dead zombie.

Paul writes,

Whether by ignorance, carelessness, or malice, the poster cited the wrong passage, and quoted only a truncated portion.  Here is a more complete selection from 1 Cor. 11 (not 1 Cor. 1):


1Cor 11
1 Follow my example, just like I follow Christ?s. 2 I praise you because you remember all my instructions, and you hold on to the traditions exactly as I handed them on to you. 3 Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered shames his head. 5 Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head. It is the same thing as having her head shaved. 6 If a woman doesn?t cover her head, then she should have her hair cut off. If it is disgraceful for a woman to have short hair or to be shaved, then she should keep her head covered. 7 A man shouldn?t have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is man?s glory. 8 Man didn?t have his origin from woman, but woman from man; 9 and man wasn?t created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man. 10 Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels. 11 However, woman isn?t independent from man, and man isn?t independent from woman in the Lord. 12 As woman came from man so also man comes from woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it appropriate for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Doesn?t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him; 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? This is because her long hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if someone wants to argue about this, we don?t have such a custom, nor do God?s churches.

Up until the 1960's this was understood simply and women everywhere wore something on their head.

This is both dubious and misleading.

It was not just women who commonly wore hats of various sorts, but men also, probably even more so than women.  And for women especially, it was a "dress-up" sort of thing.

In any case, your implication is that women wore head coverings because they were familiar with this passage, and that is what this passage teaches.  But that same reading of the passage argues AGAINST the common cultural practice of MEN of the '60s and prior.

Then came the SECOND wave of feminism (that is, the one not concerned so much with equal rights but with erasing all gender distinctions, homosexuality and abortion). Also came the Roman Vatican II and in a VERY short time, with almost no discussion, almost all ladies gave up the plain meaning of Scripture and millenia of tradition.

"Plain meaning" is always a matter of opinion.  The "plain" meaning of the passage is that it applies when a woman is praying or prophesying in the assembly.  Whether it applies in other situations is unknowable.

The "plain meaning" also depends on the proper translation of "akatakaluptos" in v. 5 and 13.  Scholars debate this.

Also, the "plain meaning" of v. 5 is contrary to the "plain meaning" of 14:34-35 of the same book.  The former appears to give rules addressing what women should wear when praying or prophesying, while the latter "plainly" state that women should be silent, not speaking at all.

Now, I am not asking for a discussion on the interpretation of the verse.

Well that's a stupid position to take, and probably why you got no responses until now.

Please if you wish start a separate thread for that.

Nah.

What puzzles me is WHY the Protestant churches so suddenly decided to imitate both the culture and the Roman "catholic" church.

If going hatless to church had occured after a profound and careful theological debate I would be quite OK with that. But the reality is that this change occured because ladies brought the culture into the church without much, if any, Biblical examination.

Frankly, I doubt that you would really be "ok" with it.  And frankly, I think it's silly that that one practice should be the focus of "profound and careful theological debate."  Why not the ones in 1 Tim. 2 and 1 Pet. 3 about jewelry, hair adornments, and fancy clothing?  Why not the 1 Tim. 2 command to men to lift their hands in prayer -- a practice mostly associated with Pentecostals and Charismatics, and rarely seen in "traditional" churches?

This, and the additional fact tha Rome seemed to lead this disturbs me. I go to a church were there is no headcovering, BTW. My unmarried daughters and wife though are required by me to have SOMETHING on their head. The married are to listen to their husbands, not me.

My condolences to your chattel.

Ladies, I am NOT going to argue on your site. I am going to read your responses, only answering if specifically asked.

Why are you reluctant to discuss translation and interpretation of the passage you mis-cited?  Are you concerned that your position really does not have a firm foundation?

 

[Walt]

The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck

 

[prophet]

The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck

That is almost as obvious as the passage about women doing good works that gets misquoted as a dress standard...

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck

That is almost as obvious as the passage about women doing good works that gets misquoted as a dress standard...

The longer I'm around the more I realize that what is obvious to some is not at all obvious to others...

 

[Izdaari]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

 

[NorrinRadd]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for me or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Sure.  But there are non-trivial hermeneutical presuppositions involved in arriving at that conclusion.

 

[Izdaari]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Sure.  But there are non-trivial hermeneutical presuppositions involved in arriving at that conclusion.

No doubt true. OTOH, I'm allergic to book length posts. How best to resolve this?

 

[NorrinRadd]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Sure.  But there are non-trivial hermeneutical presuppositions involved in arriving at that conclusion.

No doubt true. OTOH, I'm allergic to book length posts. How best to resolve this?

Until and unless the thread evokes more participation, I resolve to drop it.

 

[Walt]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Are you taking the attitude that parts of the Bible we can ignore because it was instruction for "Paul's time"?

Once one starts down that road, more and more things can be ignored under the "not culturally relevant" banner...

 

[Izdaari]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Are you taking the attitude that parts of the Bible we can ignore because it was instruction for "Paul's time"?

Once one starts down that road, more and more things can be ignored under the "not culturally relevant" banner...

Yes. I think that's just what it was: appropriate advice for Paul's time and culture, not especially relevant now. Paul's letters were addressed to specific Christian communities. Some of it is dealing with their particular concerns, and some of it is for all Christians forever. This, IMHO, is in the former category.

 

[Izdaari]

I need to find a raspberry beret to wear to church, and also a red Corvette to drive to church. Both in honor of Prince of course.

 

[Walt]

That's all culturally relative stuff. What was proper in Paul's time isn't now. It isn't the custom for men or women to wear hats or head coverings in any church I've been to recently.

Are you taking the attitude that parts of the Bible we can ignore because it was instruction for "Paul's time"?

Once one starts down that road, more and more things can be ignored under the "not culturally relevant" banner...

Yes. I think that's just what it was: appropriate advice for Paul's time and culture, not especially relevant now. Paul's letters were addressed to specific Christian communities. Some of it is dealing with their particular concerns, and some of it is for all Christians fprever. This, IMHO, is in the former category.

Fair enough; that is your prerogative.

I think that God wrote the Bible for all time; that's why we find the command to "be modest", but God does not give a bunch of culture-specific items that are modest or not modest. It is for each Christian to determine by seeking God's will.

I Cor 11 is primarily about hair length, not hats.  We know so  because later in the chapter it says clearly that the woman's hair is given to her for a "covering".  Just because people have taken it to mean hats in the past doesn't mean that I am bound by their guesses.

It is clear that the Scriptural command is that a woman's hair is to be longer than a man's hair; moreover, it is to "cover" something on her head that it does not cover on a man's head.  The only things I can think of that this could apply to are (1) the ears or (2) the back of the neck; possibly both.

 

[b4cz28]

The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck

That is almost as obvious as the passage about women doing good works that gets misquoted as a dress standard...

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Sorry had to make this my first post.

It's sad that so many have been duped by liberal theology into taking this position. Lets break down these verses.

4
very man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (If hair is a cover then must a man shave his head?)
5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (Wait?!? If she already had short hair why would we need to shave it?)
6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (So let me get this straight...how can you claim that the head covering is the hair after reading this verse? No amount of theological twisting cant get you out of this one)
7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (Yet men have hair on their heads, so were covered?)
8
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (Paul is clearly using an example to back up what he is saying.)
15
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (If it were about hair lenghts then a distance would ahve been given. Its not and this is merely and example.)

 

[b4cz28]

Quite the roaring silence in response to this post.  I'll take the liberty of resurrecting this year-dead zombie.

Paul writes,

Whether by ignorance, carelessness, or malice, the poster cited the wrong passage, and quoted only a truncated portion.  Here is a more complete selection from 1 Cor. 11 (not 1 Cor. 1):


[This is both dubious and misleading.

It was not just women who commonly wore hats of various sorts, but men also, probably even more so than women.  And for women especially, it was a "dress-up" sort of thing.

In any case, your implication is that women wore head coverings because they were familiar with this passage, and that is what this passage teaches.  But that same reading of the passage argues AGAINST the common cultural practice of MEN of the '60s and prior.

This is shockingly dishonest of you. It was unheard of for us to see a hat in church by a man. That is a total fabrication on your part. Almost every single theologian until the turn of the century and mid century taught that women were to wear coverings. Even the early church writing we have from the fathers show us they taught this position, yet in the last fifty years you suddenly gained more insight then people one generation removed from Christ and Paul? This is great! Not to mention that if we go to the Greek it gets even more clear.

 

[prophet]

The Scripture goes on to clearly stated that the woman's HAIR is given to her for "a covering".

Hair is a sufficient covering for the women.  Note that this covering is supposed to be distinct for the man and the woman.  Thus, her hair should cover something that is NOT covered on a man's head.

The two obvious things that could be covered on a woman's head that could be uncovered on a man's head are (1) ears and (2) neck

That is almost as obvious as the passage about women doing good works that gets misquoted as a dress standard...

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Sorry had to make this my first post.

It's sad that so many have been duped by liberal theology into taking this position. Lets break down these verses.

4
very man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (If hair is a cover then must a man shave his head?)
5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (Wait?!? If she already had short hair why would we need to shave it?)
6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (So let me get this straight...how can you claim that the head covering is the hair after reading this verse? No amount of theological twisting cant get you out of this one)
7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (Yet men have hair on their heads, so were covered?)
8
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (Paul is clearly using an example to back up what he is saying.)
15
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (If it were about hair lenghts then a distance would ahve been given. Its not and this is merely and example.)

I'm going to assume that you don't realize that "shorn" and "shaven" are terms describing hair length and methods of cutting hair, or you wouldn't have stepped in it so bad on verse 6...

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Izdaari]

I sometimes wear a baseball cap to church. I usually take it off when I sit down though.

 

[bulka]